Upper Austrian and Tyrolian Elections

[Atahualpa]

In case you've missed it and you'd be interested. Here are the results of the upper austrian elections:
PP: 43.4% (+0.7%)
SP: 38.3% (+11.3%)
GP: 9.1% (+3.3%)
FP: 8.4% (-12.2%)

and in Tyrol:
PP: 49.9% (+2.7%)
SP: 25.9% (+4.1%)
GP: 15.5% (+7.5%)
FP: 8.0% (-11.6%)
Communists: 0.7% (-2.5%)

PP = People's Party (mid-to-right wing)
SP = Social Party (mid-to-left wing, more left than mid)
GP = Green Party (left wing)
FP = Freedom Party (right wing)

Austria is currently ruled by a coalition of the People's Party and the Freedom Party.

Somehow though the current coalition messed a lot of things up, cut on social spending and bought 18 eurofighter jets. They also try to sell state-owned companys (which are big employers here).
The FP however is blamed more to be guilty of these failures than the PP. Also because the FP has no concrete way, one day they say so and the other day its different and there are lot of quarrels in the party.
Its a tragedy for them because they continuesly built up votes over the years arriving at nearly 30% and now throught the country support has dropped below support for the Green Party.

Contradictionary to Germany the socialist parties are on the rise. Personally I like much that the Green Parties have grown and that environmental issues are getting more and more concern. Especially in Tyrol, where hundreds of thousands trucks drive through each year and where the otherwise beautiful mountaineous countryside has taken quite some damage already.

ata

[chequita guevara]

What are the other regions of Austria besides Tyrol and Upper Austria?

[DanS]

They also try to sell state-owned companys (which are big employers here).

This will prove to be an excellent policy. Unemployment isn't much of a problem, so the economy can absorb the job losses right now, if any are needed.

[Az]

I still wonder why is a govt. owned corporation inherently worse the a privatised one, DanS.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
I still wonder why is a govt. owned corporation inherently worse the a privatised one, DanS.

Because government corporations aren't motivated by profit, and thus don't do thing sthat would make sense from a profit standpont. It's kinda like blaiming saying cats make lousy dogs.

[Az]

Because government corporations aren't motivated by profit, and thus don't do thing sthat would make sense from a profit standpont.

That presumption is not necessarily true.

[DanS]

Che is right in that government-owned corporations aren't primarily motivated by profit. Because of this, they tend to be less productive than their private counterparts, and therefore have higher cost of operation. The productivity hierarchy goes like this from lowest to highest: (1) gov't owned; (2) privately owned but gov't regulated; and (3) privately owned, not gov't regulated.

[Az]

mommy said BAMing was wrong....

Seriously.... ( I am talking about Israel since that's the economy I know best ).
In Israel, during a very long time, 3 of the main banks were government owned, all of them competed with each other, and all were profitable. Now, one of the banks, the biggest one was sold, and the govt. banks are competing against it sucessfully.

Generally speaking, govt. companies succeeded in competing against private companies whenever they had to. ( with a couple of exceptions, like Israel's flag carrier. )

Zim, Israel's shipping company, successfully competed worldwide with other companies, and on the local market, as well.

Generally, it only seems that our government is selling companies, because someone is bribing someone. In case of Zim, I have personal knowledge of it to be so.

[chequita guevara]

And yet both the postal service and medicare provide cheaper service than private companies, though medicare does seem to have a problem paying on time. Government power companies certainly seem to be less expensive than private ones.

Frequently what ends up happening is that privatized government companies end up cutting services and raising prices. So now the company is profitable, but less people benefit.

[Az]

Government power companies certainly seem to be less expensive than private ones.

How much do you guys pay for your electricity? (KW/h )

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS

This will prove to be an excellent policy. Unemployment isn't much of a problem, so the economy can absorb the job losses right now, if any are needed.

There won't be many job losses or positive changes anyway, cause those companies have already had to adjust after they were in deep **** in the late 80s. The voter reaction is only in part nostalgia for the old state owned industry, and has more to do with the circumstances of privatization. It's usually done in a hurry to fill some budget holes, and often some bidders close to the government get preferential treatment.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What are the other regions of Austria besides Tyrol and Upper Austria?

Vorarlberg
Carinthia
Styria
Salzburg
Lower Austria
Burgenland
Vienna

[Wernazuma III]

The privatization argument (more effective) applies only partially in this special case. Though the argument is true and the Conservatives continued to stress it, there's something wrong in this case. The "Voest Steel" was a former 100% state owned company and in deep **** in the 80s. Thus it was partially privatized. The 66% private posession guaranteed that the company performed like a private company, while the 33% state posession guaranteed that this huge and highly important company for Austria remained in the country and was not split or did not close down in Austria and produce elsewhere etc. The system worked brilliantly, the Voest became highly competitive and made large profits. And now, out of nothing, just for the sake of doing it, the state wastes this essential control in order to make a little extra money for the moment and probably because our dandy finance minister knew some of the interested bidders...

[Atahualpa]

Wernazuma is right, selling state controlled and competitive companies is not really a clever idea. Personally I am opposing to the "sell everything" idea, because the free market doesnt care about people's social wealth or happiness, the free market just cares about money (and that excludes workers share).

I have worked at the VOEST already last year in summer for 1 month and it was a pleasure to do so. They also pay big $$$.

And about state owned companies:
We have another one and that is the Austrian Rail. Talks had been done about privatizing this as well. I think this would be a disaster. This company NEVER can make profit or you'd have to raise fares so much that would only annoy people.
I also never understood why this would be so clever to have two seperate companies, one that holds and maintains the tracks and the other that uses them with trains.
When I think of what happened to the British Rail I am horrified.

When considering state owned, state controlled or private companies you also have to take into account the size of Austria. We are pretty small country and thus any investor that takes over one of "our" companies is likely to come from Germany or other EU member country. Now, I guess these people have even less interest in saving a company just for the sake of Austrians having a working place and during a difficult period might dump them.

ata